Software – Law Technology Todayhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org
From the ABA Legal Technology Resource CenterTue, 30 Jul 2019 15:59:02 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3Why Law Firms Should Switch From Desktop to QuickBooks Onlinehttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/07/why-law-firms-should-switch-from-desktop-to-quickbooks-online/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/07/why-law-firms-should-switch-from-desktop-to-quickbooks-online/#respondMon, 29 Jul 2019 15:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=10528Switching from QuickBooks Desktop to QuickBooks Online is something that many law firms have been putting off for years.

]]>I am not affiliated with Quickbooks in any way, but I’ve noticed that switching from QuickBooks Desktop to QuickBooks Online is something that many law firms have been putting off for years. Even with limitations like not getting real-time data and even when they’ve heard that the online version will make their accounts more precise, efficient, and compliant, attorneys are still reluctant to change.

I spoke with three QuickBooks accounting experts to get a sense of the inertia they found in law firms. They discussed with me the fear of change, the fear of technology, and worry about the cost. All three accounting pros have converted law firms from Desktop to QuickBooks Online and say that none of the attorneys have regretted the switch.

The Reluctance To Change

Lynda Artesani, owner of Artesani Bookkeeping and a specialist in law firm accounting, spoke about an older partner of a law firm who was accustomed to using Desktop and didn’t see the value in moving to the cloud: the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” category. What he didn’t realize is not only the time savings of automation (no more hours spent reconciling the books each month) but also the efficiencies of accuracy and ability to reduce staff size—huge cost savings, thanks to real-time automation. When you’re in the cloud, you can be away from the office and have the information at your fingertips.

Reluctance also stemmed from ideas about security breaches and the new software not being able to do what they do now. But Brandy Derrick, owner of LegalEaseBookKeeping.com explained that QuickBooks Online has the highest level of encryption—as secure as your bank’s website. And truthfully, most likely more secure than your law office server. As a law firm specialist, Brandy insists that the Online version can do everything that Desktop can. “People hate change: it takes time to learn a new system but with the software integrations and automation, law firms can save themselves a significant amount of time by using the online version.”

The Disadvantages of Staying with Desktop

It’s old school to have your bookkeeper come to your office each month to reconcile your books and charge you for those hours. Even with the additional cost of QuickBooks Online, you’ll come out ahead of the game, financially speaking, just by automating reconciliation. We haven’t even mentioned yet the other features like reporting, that add value.

Sarah Prevost, another law firm accounting expert from Mintage Labs, asks attorneys to consider their billable hour to the amount of the software. If there is no real-time data, you don’t drive the business when you are looking at historical reports. Since Desktop is not updating data in real-time, not knowing if your trust account details are up to date can cause pain: some law firms use extra supplemental spreadsheets to make up for this (back to spending time and money because time is money).

Brandy adds that with Desktop, you cannot integrate with practice management software which means there will be errors and time spent finding those errors. Again, additional cost.

All three of these experts see no cost advantage from staying with Desktop when taking into consideration the automation that rids the law firm of manual work, billed by the bookkeeper.

Artesani says that automation is a thing of beauty, especially when it means she can help her clients dedicate their valuable time to more meaningful tasks than manually entering a billable expense. She and Sarah worked on a more massive conversion recently and the first thing she heard after the switch to QuickBooks Online was a sigh of relief on the time savings: No more manual entries, we’re now able to do bulk invoices and we can both be in the program at the same time!

]]>In the not-too-distant past, there were a limited number of options for long-distance communication: mail, faxes, and telephone calls (and let’s not forget telegrams before that).

Today, of course, our options for communication are many and varied. From the moment we awake to the moment we go to sleep, we’re usually within arm’s reach of some sort of electronic device. Whether at work or home, we use tablets and computers for everyday tasks, so we’re constantly able to communicate by email, text messages, social media, video chats, various types of messaging apps, and chat or discussion features built into video games.

Our electronic conversations on these platforms are frequently brief and unmemorable. But those messages don’t disappear just because we’ve moved on—they’re saved in perpetuity on our devices, a company server, or somewhere in the cloud. They may never be viewed again—unless they contain data that has potential relevance in a legal matter.

When that happens, a person’s forgotten messages can resurface months or years later. And because of their newfound importance, there’s a need to identify, collect, and preserve them. A few years back, when electronic communications were simply emails and text messages, this wasn’t a difficult task. But in our current digitally-soaked society, with an ever-growing number of communication methods being used, litigants, and the e-discovery companies that assist them, must deal with the mounting challenge of gathering together the many strands of relevant, discoverable data to create a comprehensive picture.

Many channels of communication

The most difficult part of e-discovery isn’t gathering data—it’s doing the detective work of locating it. Most businesses have a preferred chat program for employees to communicate among each other, and sometimes externally, such as Microsoft Teams, Slack, Yammer, or HipChat. However, it’s not realistic to think that employees communicate exclusively using the “official” channel that you’ve set up. The days are gone when each employee used a Blackberry or company-owned computer that was locked down to limit the available communication options.

Today, a company can’t realistically stop its employees from using non-official means to communicate. As a result, a crucial step in the e-discovery process is pinning down any other modes of communication that employees might have used—and communicating that to the employer.

The fastest, cheapest way to get this information is to use custodian questionnaires (“CQs”)—essentially, electronic surveys that are sent to employees. When crafting your CQ, be as specific as possible about the custodian’s data storage, communication apps, and overall hygiene habits, but try to do so without too many open-ended questions. Within days or even hours, completed surveys can start yielding useful information about which communication channels have been used, and where to search for relevant data.

Going where the data is

After the places to search for data have been identified, the next job is to retrieve it. The difficulty of collecting data ranges widely across applications—Slack and Yammer make it relatively easy, for example. But it can be significantly trickier to access data that’s stored on an employee’s personal device or within a communication platform that someone uses mostly outside of work.

Not everybody knows that personal phones, tablets, computers, and other electronic devices could be subject to data collection in a legal matter if they’re used in relation to a job. That said, the question of whether an employee can be legally made to comply with discovery on their personal devices is a bit hazy under current law. When it’s necessary to collect relevant data from a device owned by an employee, the question of personal privacy comes up and can present a roadblock in the discovery process.

One way that companies deal with this problem is by making each employee sign a consent form allowing the company to access any personal devices that the employee chooses to use for work. So, fair warning to anyone who may have gotten in the habit of using the same chat app for personal and business conversations—by doing so, you may be giving the green light for your personal account to be subject to discovery.

When data is collected, it’s important to do it in a secure and defensible manner that preserves metadata—which can be thought of as “the data behind the data.” Metadata helps provide context about a set of data, such as when a message was posted, where it was posted from (including GPS data and the IP address used), who might have posted it, and who and when someone might have read it. All of this, as you can imagine, can be revealing and informative.

E-discovery is often painstaking and technical work, which is why it’s essential that it’s done by experts, whether internal or external to the organization. The technicians and investigators who do data retrieval work should have digital forensic experience and credentials, and the tools and methods they use must be forensically sound. In addition, they should be fluent in privacy laws and understand how to navigate them so that no violations take place during the discovery process. By relentlessly hewing to a forensically sound, compliant data collection process, you’ll benefit in the end when the data is legally admissible in court.

Data normalization

After data is collected from all the necessary sources, it must undergo a process called normalization, where all varieties of data are standardized into a uniform, accessible format. It’s harder than it sounds, especially when new programs and apps—and often thereby new data types—are growing at a more and more rapid rate.

But even long-existing data sources and formats can still be challenging. Take text messages, for example. In a typical text thread, there are often several topics being discussed at once, and sometimes there are simultaneous side conversations between two people in a larger group thread. Now, imagine that you’re a third party trying to piece a string of texts together from a span of weeks or months. What might make sense to the participants can be bewildering when read out of context.

With email, in comparison, there are subject lines that help in linking messages together, not to mention internal conversation and thread codes that are found in email headers (which is how Outlook and Gmail group conversation threads together). Text messages and other platforms lack this level of organization, which can make accurate normalization a lengthy and complex process.

Analyzing the data

Following normalization, this data is reviewed to determine what’s relevant and what’s not. Internal investigators or attorneys have an assortment of powerful software tools at their disposal—using algorithms, patterns, statistical analysis, and even forms of artificial intelligence—to locate the information that they’re after. Detailed analysis can connect seemingly unrelated people and events, determine the relevance of individual communications, and lead to previously unidentified sources of additional information.

But none of this can happen if a company doesn’t have a complete picture of the data available in its assorted communications channels, both official and unofficial. That’s why, when facing any pending litigation, your first and most important step should be an expansive search to locate relevant data wherever it may exist. Starting the process in a thoughtful, comprehensive, and legally defensible way will offer your best chance at a successful resolution.

]]>Gains from technologies that leverage legal labor are real, and so enticing. The positive impact of a properly selected and implemented tool can be profound. But so too can be the fallout from a poor purchasing decision: opportunity costs, wasted implementation time, living with tools not fit-for-purpose and the resulting cynicism waiting for the next poor soul who suggests a tech-centric initiative.

Lawyers, law departments and law firms have a hard time making coherent technology buying decisions because we lack time, attention, familiarity and acumen. We should introduce more rigor into our technology purchase process to make better, more objective decisions tailored to our specific needs.

Mistakes We Make

Using technology is still outside most legal professionals’ comfort zones. Choosing technology is an order of magnitude more disconcerting. Lacking the appropriate foundation, we are frequently given to chasing slick solutions in search of real-world problems. Even when a problem or use case is identified, we often behave like last-minute shoppers. We self-limit options because we are unfamiliar with the universe of vendors and, instead, go with a short list pieced together from Google, scattered articles and chance interactions. We then make hasty, if not always quick, decisions because we get distracted by the multitude of other legitimate priorities that compete for our time and attention. We take what seems like the path of least resistance. We gravitate toward shiny objects, instant gratification and the promise of the black box that drives superior outputs from the same inputs. Well-done but serial, siloed and canned demos easily sway our sense of “must-haves.” Meanwhile, distinguishing between vendors is a challenge – causing us to default to our impressionistic impulses about which salesperson we liked most on a personal level or who seemed to offer the most politically salable price point. To the extent we find ourselves confused, we look to other indicia of quality like investments made by our respected peers, presuming they face similar problems but actually did all the homework.

A Better Way

An approach used for a long time in other spaces that can be successfully applied to legal tech purchasing decisions is to define and weigh detailed legal and business requirements and base the final decision on a quantitative analysis of responses against those requirements. Following this approach ensures that choices are based on specific needs, leads to an objective decision point and produces a full audit trail to support internal approvals.

Here is a step-by-step example of how it works:

Identify the problem you are trying to solve. For example, this could be to enable self-service for your business.

Prepare a list of system features required to solve the problem. For our example, some options would be a smart form to collect information from a business requestor, artificial intelligence to recognize clauses in third-party paper, approval by email and an integrated e-signature tool. To help get started, an exhaustive list of functional requirements for a contract life cycle management system can be found HERE.

Send the features list to each vendor to complete.

Score vendor responses and rank solutions. Here is an example of a simple formula:

Importance = How important the feature is to solve your problem

Importance

Example of Weighting

Required

4

Critical

3

Important

2

Nice to Have

1

Indifferent

0

Availability = How well the vendor’s system covers the feature

Availability

Example of Weighting

Available Out of the Box (i.e., without customization, configuration or third-party integration)

4

Available Through Out-of-the-Box Third-Party Integration at No Additional Cost

3

Available but Customer Configuration Required

3

Available but Vendor Configuration Required (i.e., customization)

2

On Road Map

1

Not on Road Map

0

Scores across functional requirements are added together to come up with an overall score for a vendor, and vendors can then be ranked to help determine which tools are worth a deeper look, with a goal of getting as close as is feasible to testing a live system. One light-touch method is to give the vendors a specific script to follow in their demo. This forces them to abandon their canned routines and focus on your core functional requirements. It can also be telling of what is to come during an implementation, testing how well a vendor can translate your instructions into a live build and how easily a system can be configured.

If bandwidth permits, you can also try to gain access to a “sandbox” or build in a pilot period to your license with an easy opt-out. Many of the major technology investments are amenable to this approach, but be warned: these become demanding projects unto themselves. They need to be properly designed to produce useful insights and properly positioned to generate buy-in from the right stakeholders. For those up for the challenge, real-world testing surfaces implementation obstacles that are hard to discern in the abstract or in a demo.

Worth the Cost

Applying rigor and discipline to technology tool selection demands scarce resources: time and attention. In short, it will cost you – upfront. But, ultimately, the initial investment will cost far less than the long-term consequences of making the wrong selection. If you do not have the bandwidth or expertise, find a partner who does – someone whose only objective is to help you make the right choice. Experts can work with you – emphasis on “with” – to create and calibrate your decision matrix. They can then help run proofs of concept for you.

]]>What do you think of when you hear the word agile? A hummingbird or maybe a tiger? Agile is the ability to move sprightly and sporadically. Agile also describes a methodology of project management built on the same principals that we witness in nature. Agile is often used for new software development, yet, the same approach can be applied to electronic discovery.

Jim Highsmith is a popular agile guru who employs his passion, mountain climbing, to explain the key concepts of Agile methodology. When confronted with the ascent, a mountain climber diagrams the course starting at the base to the summit. Yet once the climbing starts, things change. The ledge that looked promising from the base is, in fact, obstructed. The climb or plan needs to be adjusted. This type of versatility is required in mountain climbing as it is with project management.

Agile methodology allows the team to quickly deliver high-quality project increments again and again. The agile team follows “sprint schedules.” Sprint schedules are manageable chunks of work created when the project team selects the amount of work it can deliver from the prioritized backlog and using historical reference as a guide, the team determines how much work to schedule in each sprint until the project is completed. The major benefit is that when the results of each sprint are reviewed by the stakeholders, the scope can be reconsidered and changed if needed be, prior to the following sprint. This results in timely delivery with continuous improvement, which is at the core of the Agile framework.

How does the agile framework apply to electronic discovery?

First, let’s review the concepts. Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is a well-established, structured approach to both information management and data collection. The EDRM framework described in the well-known diagram is a conceptual view of the e-discovery process. We may work through the phases as laid out, or change our mind and elect to work on them in a different order.

In e-discovery, information is not rapidly changing due to legal control, represented by the legal hold. Yet while data resides in far-flung locations throughout the enterprise and will need to be kept for years, depending on the legal matter, the marketplace is shifting. Vendors offer new tools and technologies that may change one’s approach, breeding uncertainty. This uncertainty lends itself to the Agile framework in addressing e-discovery.

Below is a comparison of the traditional Waterfall methodology and the Agile methodology for the same for e-discovery project.

How to use Agile methodology in e-discovery

In e-discovery, we don’t have a lot of information up front to restrict the amount of data collected. These restrictions will present themselves when the data has been culled and processed. The legal team wants a wide net in which to collect as much data as may be responsive and to promote defensibility. If data is lost or not collected, this may lead to costly fines or even the forfeiture of the case. Agile can be very well suited for e-discovery as it reduces the cost of change and uncertainty.

Predictive analytics

“Rolling productions” is the most common term used in e-discovery that fits the Agile methodology. A rolling production is a subset of the required files to be produced to the court and opposing counsel. An SME (subject matter expert) would review the subset of the production to identify responsive and non-responsive documents. The predictive analytics engine would then assign scores to the rest of the documents based on the SME’s relevant and non-relevant decisions. This process helps the review team prioritize their review of documents. The prioritized document backlog to be processed allows the legal e-discovery team to chunk the work into manageable amounts and assign a relative cost to each of their major requirements. The e-discovery team then prioritizes the requirements based on the risk, cost, and level of effort, thereby creating sprint schedules.

At the end of each sprint, the results need to be reviewed and discussed by a designated stakeholder, allowing the stakeholder or end customer to validate the work and ensure quality and completeness. For example, if the e-discovery team believes the email collection is complete, perhaps it is time to collect network file shares or social media. What to collect next may have a much higher value, in risk, cost, and effort. This new requirement can be incorporated and prioritized appropriately with prior sprint findings as input.

Key metrics

Using agile for rolling productions, the e-discovery team can show tangible progress against the high priority tasks. An agile burndown chart (amount of work left versus time) assists in reallocating resources to critical areas.

Reducing cost and risk

Introducing Agile to the EDRM process will decrease the burden on the e-discovery team in the following ways:

Reduce the overall amount of data the e-discovery team will need to filter and search

A decrease in manual processes

Create less slippage in the schedule in terms of time and scope

Enhanced strategy adherence and focus on real business requirements

The Agile-EDRM strategy aligns with the pressing business need and demonstrates better quality results and prevent delays and cost overruns. Like all change though, it obviously requires a shift in mindset to realize these gains.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/04/e-discovery-using-agile/feed/0Migrating Document Management to the Cloudhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/04/migrating-document-management-to-the-cloud/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/04/migrating-document-management-to-the-cloud/#respondTue, 09 Apr 2019 15:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=10031Migrating to cloud-based document management may seem like a daunting task, but with the right information and approach, it doesn’t have to be.

]]>Technology has revolutionized the way today’s attorneys practice law, and few things have made as big an impact as the evolution of the cloud. Cloud solutions have broad applications across the legal field, thanks to their ability to offer lawyers access to their data anytime, anywhere. One of the biggest areas where cloud technology has changed the legal landscape is document management.

Many firms have already made the decision to migrate their document management to the cloud, and those which haven’t yet likely considered it. Migrating to cloud-based document management may seem like a daunting task, but with the right information and approach, it doesn’t have to be. Here are some things every lawyer should consider when making the decision of whether to move document management to the cloud.

The Benefits of Cloud-Based Document Management

Both on-premises and cloud-based document management systems are continuing to evolve. What is increasingly setting the two options apart, however, is cost. The way providers are bundling document management systems these days, firms are generally able to access more features and functionality in the cloud than they could potentially have on-site for a smaller economic footprint. Simply put, today’s cloud-based document management solutions have more bells and whistles than most firms could ever hope to implement on-premises purely due to cost.

Cloud solutions also offer the benefit of unrivaled accessibility. One of the main reasons that the cloud became so popular so quickly is that it allows you to access your data anytime, anywhere, as long as you have an internet connection. In a profession like law where you’re expected to be available on the go at all times of the day or night, cloud solutions make a real difference.

Making the Move to the Cloud

Once you’ve decided to make the move to the cloud, where do you start? There’s a lot that goes into a migration. The important thing is to look at the entire solution and what’s involved rather than simply viewing your transition as a wholesale move. While most firms have document management systems, every firm uses those systems differently. Workflows are not one-size-fits-all, so, not surprisingly, strategies around migrating them are going to differ from firm to firm.

A successful migration to the cloud involves three main steps: 1) create a migration plan, 2) consider your data, and 3) evaluate the costs.

Start with a Plan

Any successful migration starts with a plan. The first thing you should do when undertaking a move to the cloud is to create a checklist that evaluates the solution you have on-premises today and outlines the benefits you want to gain by moving to the cloud.

You should also define your migration strategy. Are you looking to do a full rip and replace of your current document management system, or would a phased migration be better for your firm? There are tools and third-party vendors that will help you pursue either strategy.

Some firms might prefer to test and validate the migration with a specific practice or group and make sure all the details are properly working. Your internet capabilities are also a big factor in choosing your migration approach. For example, if you’re a small firm with a single connection that’s used for internet, email, and phones, you probably won’t be able to do a wholesale migration all at once and still have a fully functioning office. The important thing to think about is what approach will be best for your users and practices.

Know Your Data

Your current data footprint has a huge impact on your migration, and it’s a factor that many firms tend to overlook. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. While you can take your on-premises solution and simply move it to the cloud as is, a better approach is to look at how you’re currently using your document management data and see if there’s room to implement new workflows and updated processes that will help you better manage that data and handle data that’s become stale.

Data storage costs in the cloud may be low, but as your data repository continues to grow over time, storage costs will also grow, which is something you should keep in mind when migrating your data. If you already have a data maintenance strategy in place when you start your migration, it will be an embedded process in your new solution, setting you up for success from the start.

Consider the Cost

At first glance, your monthly spend for cloud solutions may be a little higher, but what you need to evaluate is your overall cost in the long run. What are you currently spending for on-premises hardware, hardware maintenance, power, utilities, security and IT working space? While the cloud may cost more initially, you can mitigate that cost by eliminating all your on-premises costs, perhaps making the cloud a cheaper option in the big picture.

For many firms, evaluating this cost/benefit ratio is the basis for making the decision to migrate. The decision also often comes when it’s time for a hardware refresh. When facing the decision between keeping your document management on-premises and rebuilding your hardware infrastructure or moving to the cloud, the latter is often the more cost-effective option.

Choosing the Right Cloud Environment

When choosing a cloud provider, it’s crucial that you understand where your data will sit, how it will be stored and who will have access to it. For that reason, going with a public cloud provider like Amazon Web Services or Google is usually not the best idea, because your data will be commingled with the data of everyone else in the world, which has dangerous implications for sensitive law firm information.

The adequacy of a cloud provider will generally depend on how it is regulated. Migrating presents the perfect opportunity to rethink your governance and security standpoint. What worked six years ago when you implemented your current document management system might not work today, as your firm, processes, and workflows have evolved. Choosing the right cloud provider is an opportunity to enhance the security posture of your data.

Prepare for Common Migration Challenges

Because migration isn’t a one-size-fits-all process, there are always challenges. Experienced third-party vendors and tools exist to help you conquer those challenges. After all, it’s much easier to pull off a successful migration when you’re not reinventing the wheel.

Working with an outside provider that has done migrations to the cloud specifically in law firms is the best way to make the process less daunting. An experienced vendor can help you move your data while putting new processes and structures into place that make sense with the amount of data you have to shift. Larger amounts of data will take much longer to migrate, so it’s important to have the right strategies and methodologies in place to ensure that your on-premises data matches your cloud data at various checkpoints along the way.

Migration is not just about making a move to the cloud, but also offers a great opportunity to look for ways to gain efficiencies and make more effective use of your data and processes. Having a strategy and knowing your high-level goals are key to accomplishing a successful migration and getting the most out of your new cloud-based document management system.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/04/migrating-document-management-to-the-cloud/feed/0Is Moving to the Cloud Software Really Worth the Cost?https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/03/is-moving-to-the-cloud-software-really-worth-the-cost/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/03/is-moving-to-the-cloud-software-really-worth-the-cost/#respondTue, 26 Mar 2019 13:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=10098It’s time for law firms to stop thinking about a move to the cloud as a zero-sum game.

]]>We all know there’s been a Teutonic shift in how software is accessed in the last 10-15 years. No longer is the server-client model the only option for law firms when it comes using the software they need to run a smooth and profitable business. Using software through your web browser is now the norm for almost all business solutions, even enterprise-level programs usually have some cloud-based components.

Of course, this change in software consumption presented challenges to law firms. First and foremost was security and the ethical issue of storing client data outside of the law firms control. Would important client information be as safe in a cloud environment as an on-premise server protected by firewalls, etc? Many state bar associations as well as the ABA have answered that question and determined that cloud computing use is within the ethical realm of lawyers.

With that hurdle cleared, there remains one other major change: how we pay for the software. Monthly subscriptions are the norm and a new term has been born: SaaS. Software as a Service means you pay month to month and can leave anytime you’d like. This gives firms much more flexibility in the software they want to use.

The main benefits of a monthly subscription and using web-based software is you never have to worry about the costly upgrades to the software as well as the overhead IT costs to maintain servers. Upgrades happen to your cloud software automatically the next time you log into their system after a new release.

With all this being said, many lawyers are suspicious of paying for software in perpetuity. Are they really getting their money’s worth compared to a one-time fee for software installed on their server in their office? We’re all used to paying a monthly fee for cell phone service, entertainment like Netflix and our internet. But when it comes to software, there are still a lot of skeptics.

What often isn’t asked by law firms is the question, are they saving more time with cloud-based solutions? Because in the legal world, time is money. What if the time saved using software that is nimble enough to constantly be providing upgrades actually paid for itself? That’s what law firms should be considering when thinking about a shift to web software. Return on Investment (ROI) is a term we all know but can be elusive in determining.

At TimeSolv, we’ve asked our customers how much time they’ve saved in their billing work using our product versus their old solution. The results showed a savings of over eight hours a week in work done with invoicing. Think about that. That’s an entire day of billable time gained. If you’re an attorney that charges $250/hour, you’ve just gained $2,000 more in billable time. A monthly subscription of $34.95 for a $2,000 return on investment? Safe to say that’s an ROI most law firms will take.

TimeSolv has developed an ROI calculator that lets you enter variables like your hourly rate, the number of timekeepers and how much time you save using TimeSolv. The numbers show that even if you save as little as one minute a day per timekeeper in the time entry and/or billing process, the product will pay for itself.

It’s time for law firms to stop thinking about a move to the cloud as a zero-sum game and start thinking about it as another path to increased efficiency, which translates to increased profitability.

About the Author

Scott Clasen is the director of marketing at TimeSolv Corporation, a Minnesota-based company providing leading class billing, timekeeping and project management tools for law firms since 1999. TimeSolv’s web-based platform is compatible for both PCs and Macs, and offers an iOS and Android app.

]]>At the law firm I work for, we’ve been hit with ransomware three times. Each time that happened, we had a massive amount of files on a shared network drive encrypted and held completely inaccessible. As the systems administrator, charged with the integrity of our data, it only took me about 10 minutes to solve the problem and get back to business as usual.

Where our virus protection failed (and we have great virus protection) our backup system was extremely valuable in recovering from each ransomware hit.

Particularly for small to mid-sized law firms, I would argue that continuous, encrypted, cloud-based backup solutions are the most effective way to handle ransomware.

Why Ransomware is Different

Ransomware is not like other computer viruses. Frankly, it’s not really a computer virus at all (more properly categorized as malware) which is why using traditional virus protection to defend against it can be so tricky. When we got “infected” with ransomware, there were no pop-ups, no shady programs running in the background, and no clicking (that I know of) on questionable website links.

Instead, it was a simple script that encrypted our files and left a small notepad.txt file describing how we could pay to have our files unencrypted.

Now, it’s not to say that virus protection is not helpful or that many attacks are not stopped by strong anti-virus programs. They certainly are. However, I’ve found that—unlike many other computer issues—my best play was not preventative. Instead, it was in the aftermath that I was able to most effectively deal with the problem by restoring from a backup copy of our data.

Best Practices for Setting Up Backups to Deal with Ransomware

Ransomware or not, the best backup systems need to have certain qualities. First, a good backup configuration should have three “layers” of data. By layers, I mean multiple copies of each file. For example, your firm might store documents on a shared network drive, which would be your first layer of data.

A good backup set would give you three total layers, perhaps something like this:

Original copy

Local backup (media server, external hard drive)

Offsite copy (cloud-based backup)

In my experience, the offsite backup is the most critical, because it’s completely autonomous from your network and can’t be impacted by a ransomware infection. Additionally, these backups can often be setup to roll continuously, meaning you can restore files right to the moment you were infected with ransomware. The cloud-based backup you choose should also have the following features:

Encryption

Ability to retrieve files by past versions (called “versioning”)

Two-factor authentication (secures your user account)

Assuming you have your three layers of backup in place, another best practice is to backup at least twice a day (if not continuously), once at noon and again at midnight. This gives you a restore point from the middle of the day instead of having only one, or two that are both after working hours.

Each time we were hit by ransomware, I used the cloud version of our data to restore and then manually ran the local backup again to make sure everything was starting from the same spot. I was struck by how valuable those backups were and how much time they were saving me. Had I not had an effective backup system in place, there was no real “technical” answer for getting our data back.

Besides being a general best practice, our firm saved a massive amount of time and money by having a simple backup and restore system ready to go.

Other Things You Can do to Prevent Ransomware

As I mentioned, it is definitely helpful and necessary to keep up-to-date anti-virus software on all your firm’s computers (including a centralized server if you have one). This can prevent most of the malware attacks that allow cryptoviral extortion, in the first place.

I also recommend downloading a program called CryptoPrevent, which is a type of anti-malware software that is specifically designed to prevent the execution of ransomware by changing the group policy for the folders where that type of malware typically resides. The free version has all this functionality and runs in the background once installed.

I’d recommend pairing it with whatever virus protection software you’re using on all computers that are part of your firm’s network.

What if I notice ransomware on one of my firm’s computers?

Ransomware can infect both the local files of the computer it resides on as well as the files on any network share that might accessible from that computer. The first thing to do if you notice ransomware on a specific computer is to disconnect the ethernet cable and/or disable the Wi-Fi card to cut off access to your network shares.

At that point, leave the infected computer and go check on the network shares to make sure they have not also been infected. If they have been ransomed (encrypted), do a full restore of the infected files from earlier that day or preferably a day or two prior.

Once the files on your server are restored, you can then move back to the infected PC and repeat the process. If possible, you should consider doing a System Restore for that computer before restoring files from your backup.

Conclusion

In my experience, preventing ransomware is a lot harder than simply deleted or replacing ransomed files. I would advise attacking the problem from both sides, making sure you have good anti-virus, anti-malware, and backup systems in place. It’s the difference between a ransomware being a catastrophe for your entire firm or a minor annoyance for the IT department.

]]>In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

]]>Microsoft Teams is a powerful collaboration tool that can help accelerate digital transformation for all legal organizations. This article will explore the basics of Microsoft Teams and provide some possible use cases for Microsoft Teams for in-house legal departments, law firms, and other legal organizations.

Microsoft Teams makes teamwork easy and it is a complete chat and online meetings solution that was launched by Microsoft on a worldwide basis in March 2017. It is integrated with Microsoft’s Office 365 cloud solution and you can have anywhere and anytime access to Microsoft Teams via its desktop and mobile applications. Microsoft recently announced that Microsoft Teams is the fastest growing business application in Microsoft’s history as Teams is used by 329,000 organizations and 87 Fortune 100 companies. Microsoft Teams is also a global tool that supports 44 different languages.

While Microsoft Teams is a collaboration powerhouse and an alternative to traditional email, it is also very appealing for all legal organizations as it is built on the Microsoft Office 365 hyper-scale, enterprise-grade cloud solution and delivers the advanced security and compliance capabilities that law firms and in-house legal groups expect. For example, Microsoft Teams complies with many key compliance standards such as the following: ISO 27001, ISO 27018, SSAE16, SOC 1, and SOC 2. The platform also enforces team-wide and organization-wide two-factor authentication, single sign-on through Microsoft Active Directory, and encryption of data in transit and at rest.

Microsoft Teams is extremely easy and intuitive to use. In fact, I’ve created several teams with my Microsoft legal colleagues and business clients to help foster rich collaboration. With just a few clicks you can create a new team in Microsoft Teams by developing a team name, a description of the team and designating whether it is a public team (which anyone in your organization can join) or a private team (where you designate and control which individuals can join). Specific channels (which are like folders/tabs) on various subject matter areas can also be added to your team to help improve the organization of the information that is added to a team.

Once a new team is created, people who are members of that team can start posting and adding information to that team. The beauty of Microsoft Teams is that the information that is added to a team—whether it be messages, emails, videos, Word documents, information in OneNotes, PowerPoint slides, etc.—can be viewed by all members of that team, such information is stored in a repository-like fashion for future reference, team members can work together on edits/updates to such information while in Microsoft Teams and it is highly searchable. Such level of information transparency and access coupled with the many strong product features of Microsoft Teams can enable lawyers and legal professionals to be more productive and to engage in thoughtful ideation —regardless of where they are located.

Here are some use cases for Microsoft Teams to help legal organizations achieve more.

A Team for your Immediate Team

Consider establishing a team within Microsoft Teams to help ignite collaboration within the primary group that you are part of in your legal organization. For instance, as a member of Microsoft’s Corporate, External & Legal Affairs team, I am part of Microsoft’s legal field team that provides legal support to our sales organization across the United States. Our legal field team – which consists of 40+ lawyers and legal professionals scattered across the United States—has a Teams site that has served as our central hub for knowledge-sharing and we have several different channels incorporated into our Teams site. If you work at a law firm you can develop a Teams site for your specific legal practice group or perhaps sites that may be applicable to the law firm’s partners or associates in order to convey and exchange information with those specific stakeholders.

Cross Group Teams

Often, lawyers and legal professionals need to effectively partner with their colleagues who are not part of their immediate teams. For example, I need to work closely with my Microsoft legal teammates who are based in our corporate headquarters in Redmond, Washington, and colleagues who are in other parts of the world. Microsoft Teams is an excellent tool to help promote knowledge sharing among a cross-group team of lawyers and legal professionals within a legal organization.

Subject Matter Teams

There are also opportunities to create teams based on topical areas that are important to your legal organization. Those topical areas could be specific legal subject-matter areas (e.g., data privacy, employment law, intellectual property) to organizational specific (e.g., internal job opportunities, training, key internal points of contact) to other top of mind areas (e.g., diversity and inclusion, technology tools).

Teams with Your Business Clients

Developing a team with your primary business clients is a great way to build a trusted legal advisor relationship with them and to promote a better flow of significant information. You can use Microsoft Teams to seamlessly share knowledge with them, provide legal training on important areas and hopefully enable them to engage in more “self-help” on routine and repetitive legal matters in order to free up time for you and your legal organization to provide higher impact legal services.

Teams for Projects

Microsoft Teams is an excellent tool to use when you are engaged in special projects, initiatives or committees within your organization. I collaborate with several Microsoft legal teammates across our various different practice groups on such activities and we have created specific team sites for those activities which enables us to readily share, capture and create content in a modern collaboration format so that we can drive more positive impact for our business clients.

Teams for Events

Microsoft Teams is also ideal to use to share important information when your legal organization convenes key meetings or events. A specific teams site allows you to share and store the agenda, meeting notes, memos, next steps, etc…so that you can have more meaningful meetings and events.

Teams with Guests

Guest access is also available in Microsoft Teams to allows members of your organization to collaborate with people outside your organization by granting them access to teams and channels. This feature is terrific to enable deeper collaboration between in-house legal groups and their outside counsel law firms. Such team sites have a clear “This team has guests” designation near the name of the team site.

While this article is not meant to cover the breadth and depth of all of the capabilities of Microsoft Teams and possible use cases, hopefully, it provides you with some perspective on ways to embrace Microsoft Teams within your legal organization. Consider downloading today the free version of Microsoft Teams that is available worldwide in 40 languages so that you can begin using this modern collaboration tool to help you and your legal organization achieve more.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/digitally-transform-with-microsoft-teams/feed/0The Opportunity for Audio and Video in E-Discoveryhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/08/audio-and-video-in-e-discovery/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/08/audio-and-video-in-e-discovery/#respondWed, 01 Aug 2018 15:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=8912E-discovery as we know it is changing. AI technology has the power to improve efficiency, cut costs, and make better use of your time and client resources.

]]>If 90% of the world’s data was created in the last 24 months alone and 80% of that data is unstructured, how can any legal professional, let alone any human, possibly keep up? With the explosive growth of data showing no signs of slowing, lawyers are left figuring out how to leverage e-discovery to use this huge volume of data to gain a competitive advantage for their clients.

Grappling with the most effective ways to conduct e-discovery, now a $10 billion market, has long plagued the legal industry. Today’s expanding legal and regulatory demands, along with growing compliance costs, are combining to bring audio and video electronically stored information (ESI) to the forefront as a discovery concern. Manual transcription of audio is tedious and reactionary, not to mention expensive and time-consuming, taking thousands of reviewer billable hours. In addition, manual transcription of audio suffers major accuracy challenges, particularly with voicemails. Even many of today’s technology tools are limited by their inability to reduce the volume of audio and video files to a more manageable level for review.

In doing so, AI technology transforms every second or frame of audio or video content into a format that can be discovered, produced, searched, and analyzed for words, phrases, faces, sentiment, and voice identification. Legal teams are able to take that unstructured data and produce an index, or structure, within a matter of minutes, automatically culling data and identifying only the most relevant content. This dramatically compresses the time and effort required for e-discovery and frees attorneys to do what they do best: litigating.

Just as importantly, AI can help maintain compliance by scanning content across various forms of communications. Using AI engines, firms can check employee interactions conducted via media including emails and recorded phone calls to check if their language and conduct comply with legal regulations. By leveraging AI, legal groups can implement a proactive approach to communications compliance monitoring, constantly and thoroughly reviewing material in near real-time with a level of efficiency that would be impossible using traditional manual techniques.

But it’s not enough to just review audio and video files. One should also look at the data about or beyond the data – the metadata from each frame, which like audio and video ESI itself, must also be produced and discovered to meet legal requirements. On a frame-by-frame basis, AI is able to extract metadata about whatever is happening in that frame of data or second of audio. Through this extraction, AI allows someone to make better sense of that information and take action. In this way, the technology is not held back by a person’s biological limitations or inherent bias; it’s constantly watching over everything a human can’t possibly see.

AI will not replace human lawyers, who will always play the central role in the practice of law. Rather, AI technology can help a people-powered legal team become smarter and more productive—enabling them to swiftly meet e-discovery, regulatory compliance, and business intelligence requirements. With AI on the job, legal professionals will be able to focus their valuable time on crucial tasks that make the best use of their education and experience.

E-discovery as we know it is changing. AI technology has the power to improve efficiency, cut costs, and make better use of legal professionals’ time and client resources.